666...the Devils Moving Average
- Thread starter crackhead
- Start date
I am not a geologist or educated scientist but I do understand a few things.
1. How dangerous and difficult it is to go after the establishment majority that is in lockstep on a theory. I see that everyday with the biologist scientists I work with on a daily basis. I could tell you stories you would not believe.
2. I can see the unanswered holes in the dating process.
3. After years in various markets I know what the smell of rats is like.
4. I do have a bias because I don't hate God and I do suspect men.
1. How dangerous and difficult it is to go after the establishment majority that is in lockstep on a theory. I see that everyday with the biologist scientists I work with on a daily basis. I could tell you stories you would not believe.
2. I can see the unanswered holes in the dating process.
3. After years in various markets I know what the smell of rats is like.
4. I do have a bias because I don't hate God and I do suspect men.
Since you INSIST doubter, I will point out some of the CRAP in your response to show WHY I should not even respond to it.
________________________________
Axeman: Error #2 - evolution does not assert that EVERYTHING else was developed in a different way.
____________________________
Doubter: "Oh! What is the third way?
Here you make the FALSE assumption that because you can't think of a third way, that evolution somehow ASSERTS it. Ludicrous! It does NO such thing.
" The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. "
Patently false! Evolution is not the same as spontaneous generation, and yet it is very well a THIRD position.
Evolution doesn't claim that mice simply pop out of grain like spontaneous generation.
"Where are the massive piles of evidence for macro-evolution or the reliability of decay dating over billions of years or other miriad problems we aren't supposed to point out with the current conclusions from the theories."
Firstly, you just changed context. You used the term evolution, and not macro-evolution.
Secondly... there is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, you simply refuse to look at it.
You can start on the web here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You can order science books on it.
You could go to college and study it.
To claim there is no evidence for macroevolution is ludicrous.
"This is entirely off subject. There have been several claims that the bible is totally unreliable"
Stop taking things out of CONTEXT.
Who has claimed that the bible is 100% totally unreliable?? Nobody. This is your FABRICATION.
" and now you are saying "well maybe some things are not clear off the wall". "
Wrong again. I never made the claim in the first place. You blatantly fabricated it., The bible just like books of greek mythology have some truth to them. What I reject is the supernatural claims also available in this book.
"The point is that if you start somewhere then you have to admit some things are accurate. Gross statements tend to get shot down. Even yours."
Once again.... I never claimed that 100% of the bible it totally wrong.
This is your delusion.
"See above. In other words everything I say about the bible
is in error no matter how trivial and provable. Do you really believe yourself on that one. Reality check time?"
More silly fabrications and strawmen.
I NEVER made such a claim.
Try attacking what I said.
"Won't know til time ends or another event occurs."
FALSE. If the "end" is truly the end, you won't know either.
"You're just nit picking because you can't answer. If you could you would explain and then prove how the big bang occurred."
2 errors here. First of all, in a future post you disproved yourself and did your homework showing that the big bang theory claims the original size of what you refer to as an egg was quite small and NOT large as you claimed.
THEREFORE, you already proved yourself wrong. Good job.
Error 2 - I never claimed I could prove the big bang was true.
More fabricated BS from you. In fact, I openly stated I had no interest in proving the big bang and that I consider it a THEORY and not fact.
_____________________________________________
Error #11 - Arguing from ignorance. Get the facts on decay dating.
Axeman
_________________________________________
"Another dodge."
Pure nonsense.
There are more than 10,000 papers published on four popular radiometric dating techniques alone up to 1980. You quote a creationist who makes ridiculous claims that contradict there findings.
"In other word 100% of educated scientists agree with you and not one in this universe is in my corner. Really?"
More strawman drivel. Did I ever claim this? No of course not, its your own delusion and yours alone.
Im sure you can find a few quack scientists to agree with you, like your creationist friend who has been debunked left and right.
"It all hang on fable doesn't it. Your opinion only. My bible school prof. friends don't agree with your definition of fable."
Wrong again. Nothing hangs on my label of it being a fable. It hangs on the weight of the evidence which STRONGLY goes against your position and that of your bible school prof. The experts in the field over rule... sorry.
There you go.... you suckered me into answering your silly questions one more time by claiming I was dodging questions, when in fact I was simply dodging the obvious fabrications you came up with.
I'll try not to do it again.
peace
axeman
________________________________
Axeman: Error #2 - evolution does not assert that EVERYTHING else was developed in a different way.
____________________________
Doubter: "Oh! What is the third way?
Here you make the FALSE assumption that because you can't think of a third way, that evolution somehow ASSERTS it. Ludicrous! It does NO such thing.
" The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. "
Patently false! Evolution is not the same as spontaneous generation, and yet it is very well a THIRD position.
Evolution doesn't claim that mice simply pop out of grain like spontaneous generation.
"Where are the massive piles of evidence for macro-evolution or the reliability of decay dating over billions of years or other miriad problems we aren't supposed to point out with the current conclusions from the theories."
Firstly, you just changed context. You used the term evolution, and not macro-evolution.
Secondly... there is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, you simply refuse to look at it.
You can start on the web here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
You can order science books on it.
You could go to college and study it.
To claim there is no evidence for macroevolution is ludicrous.
"This is entirely off subject. There have been several claims that the bible is totally unreliable"
Stop taking things out of CONTEXT.
Who has claimed that the bible is 100% totally unreliable?? Nobody. This is your FABRICATION.
" and now you are saying "well maybe some things are not clear off the wall". "
Wrong again. I never made the claim in the first place. You blatantly fabricated it., The bible just like books of greek mythology have some truth to them. What I reject is the supernatural claims also available in this book.
"The point is that if you start somewhere then you have to admit some things are accurate. Gross statements tend to get shot down. Even yours."
Once again.... I never claimed that 100% of the bible it totally wrong.
This is your delusion.
"See above. In other words everything I say about the bible
is in error no matter how trivial and provable. Do you really believe yourself on that one. Reality check time?"
More silly fabrications and strawmen.
I NEVER made such a claim.
Try attacking what I said.
"Won't know til time ends or another event occurs."
FALSE. If the "end" is truly the end, you won't know either.
"You're just nit picking because you can't answer. If you could you would explain and then prove how the big bang occurred."
2 errors here. First of all, in a future post you disproved yourself and did your homework showing that the big bang theory claims the original size of what you refer to as an egg was quite small and NOT large as you claimed.
THEREFORE, you already proved yourself wrong. Good job.
Error 2 - I never claimed I could prove the big bang was true.
More fabricated BS from you. In fact, I openly stated I had no interest in proving the big bang and that I consider it a THEORY and not fact.
_____________________________________________
Error #11 - Arguing from ignorance. Get the facts on decay dating.
Axeman
_________________________________________
"Another dodge."
Pure nonsense.
There are more than 10,000 papers published on four popular radiometric dating techniques alone up to 1980. You quote a creationist who makes ridiculous claims that contradict there findings.
"In other word 100% of educated scientists agree with you and not one in this universe is in my corner. Really?"
More strawman drivel. Did I ever claim this? No of course not, its your own delusion and yours alone.
Im sure you can find a few quack scientists to agree with you, like your creationist friend who has been debunked left and right.
"It all hang on fable doesn't it. Your opinion only. My bible school prof. friends don't agree with your definition of fable."
Wrong again. Nothing hangs on my label of it being a fable. It hangs on the weight of the evidence which STRONGLY goes against your position and that of your bible school prof. The experts in the field over rule... sorry.
There you go.... you suckered me into answering your silly questions one more time by claiming I was dodging questions, when in fact I was simply dodging the obvious fabrications you came up with.
I'll try not to do it again.
peace
axeman
AMAZING..........
I like Axe but have lost a lot of respect for him after reading his posts from overnight.......
Axe: If you choose to not believe, that is your choice and i RESPECT your choice......But if I or others choose to BELIEVE...that is my choice and you should respect MY choice and my beliefs......if all you are going to do is a) demand pictures as your proof or b) say foul things and ridicule my beliefs....you should not be debating because its insulting and quite frankly, you are starting to sound like GG and Longshot....your better then that , you know that.....I expect silly answers and clown like attitudes form them, that is why nobody is paying attention to them, but from you we expect more.....the thing about the church bus? Classless.....7 people are dead...there is deep sorrow in many a household tonight and you are using it as a laughable debating point???? I would love to continue discussing this very complex and deeply divided subject, but the one thing Ive noticed is how ANGRY the nonbelievers get...why? If you don't believe, that is your choice....and we can continue to have a friendly debate about it...this is the beauty of being a human with free will....but for you to become so angry and lash out in so many ways makes me wonder if you have other deep rooted religious issues....I have not called anyone names or insulted them or told them their beliefs were stupid, yet it seems that every other post you and others are doing that ....why? I'll continue a cordial debate but i would ak for respect of my religious views the same way i would respect your non religious views.
I like Axe but have lost a lot of respect for him after reading his posts from overnight.......
Axe: If you choose to not believe, that is your choice and i RESPECT your choice......But if I or others choose to BELIEVE...that is my choice and you should respect MY choice and my beliefs......if all you are going to do is a) demand pictures as your proof or b) say foul things and ridicule my beliefs....you should not be debating because its insulting and quite frankly, you are starting to sound like GG and Longshot....your better then that , you know that.....I expect silly answers and clown like attitudes form them, that is why nobody is paying attention to them, but from you we expect more.....the thing about the church bus? Classless.....7 people are dead...there is deep sorrow in many a household tonight and you are using it as a laughable debating point???? I would love to continue discussing this very complex and deeply divided subject, but the one thing Ive noticed is how ANGRY the nonbelievers get...why? If you don't believe, that is your choice....and we can continue to have a friendly debate about it...this is the beauty of being a human with free will....but for you to become so angry and lash out in so many ways makes me wonder if you have other deep rooted religious issues....I have not called anyone names or insulted them or told them their beliefs were stupid, yet it seems that every other post you and others are doing that ....why? I'll continue a cordial debate but i would ak for respect of my religious views the same way i would respect your non religious views.
I would like to make this clear shoeshineboy , if you hadn't gathered this by now, I actually read the words you post and I respond to the words you post. I try not to read something extra into them and attempt to extract their intention only by what you write.Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
I shouldn't have used "we". I'm sure there's nothing more annoying than the person on the other side of a discussion speaking for you.
Now, wait a minute - I'm far from putting up a "white flag" on Genesis. I actually don't agree with a number of things you wrote in your post. What you did was raise a couple of questions I could not answer and I wanted to answer those before I got back into a discussion again (since you may very well ask them sometime down the road).
Personally, I feel that neither of us knew enough of what we were talking about and so I want to do some more research before we went on. And that was part of the point of the lunar example...
I don't know if you were saying that I was sometimes fragmenting the discussion. If so, I'll just say that I feel that I am the only one in my position (old earth creationist) and so i need to jump in there on all topics. I feel that I have to respond to all the issues both you and axe were raising (which is pretty much a full time job).
By the way, I actually think I've been pretty good. I've got a couple of other "hot discussion points" but have held off.
So in the hope of clarification, let me give you an example of how I approach this.....
you say : ..... "I shouldn't have used "we". I'm sure there's nothing more annoying than the person on the other side of a discussion speaking for you."
I think , but don't respond.... hmmm that is annoying, this current fashion of speech one hears all over the place assumes too much on my behalf. I am pleased shoeshine has noted this.
you say : ....."Now, wait a minute - I'm far from putting up a "white flag" on Genesis..."
I think , but don't respond.... I didn't suggest anywhere you were white flagging
you say : .....What you did was raise a couple of questions I could not answer and I wanted to answer those before I got back into a discussion again (since you may very well ask them sometime down the road).
I say by responding.....Fine ok but what has that got anything to do with anything? Why make ad hoc posts because you want some time to go and check something? May I suggest you don't concern yourself with what may be "down the road" and stick to the issue at hand. This isn't a trap and I am not interested in winning anything by some stealth trip-up maneuvering later on, I am addressing the words and meaning of your statement along with its subject matter....Genesis .
you say :....."Personally, I feel that neither of us knew enough of what we were talking about and so I want to do some more research before we went on. And that was part of the point of the lunar example..."
I say by responding.....So your logic suggests that YOU state YOU don't know enough about something, therefore I must not know enough either ??!! So the answer you come back with is an unrelated missive on so called Lunar events ??? Whaaaat.. and this is sticking to the subject and assisting the debate !!????
you say :....I don't know if you were saying that I was sometimes fragmenting the discussion.
I think , but don't respond.... surely he will have grasped exactly that from my respose above this
you say :.... If so, I'll just say that I feel that I am the only one in my position (old earth creationist) and so i need to jump in there on all topics. I feel that I have to respond to all the issues both you and axe were raising (which is pretty much a full time job).
I say by responding..... You and I are talking about your statement that [paraphrasing] "Genesis fits perfectly with science". As far as I can see this, you do not need to mix that up with old earth creationism or the erudition of the venerable axeman.
you say :....By the way, I actually think I've been pretty good. I've got a couple of other "hot discussion points" but have held off.
I think , but don't respond.... Thank the Unicorns for that, more confusion avoided (for now anyway)
So I trust this will explain the way in which am trying to respond to what you have said, ....not to what I think you might have said. and by sticking to the issue, things may become clear to you that I am right
(Now be clear with this, that WAS a joke!!)Edit Note: I have just scanned through the tirade of stuff from doubter and to some degree from shoeshineboy and I have to say, I don't like the mask worn by theists in general which pretends to want to debate issues, but really has only the intention to try and demand control and confuse.
Doubter's nonsense condems itself by its own overwhelming errancy and Shoeshineboy, instead of making that remark to axeman's pertinent and important observation, why didn't you attend to the substance of such very obvious contradiction in the countless cruelty brought about by nature or innocent circumstance, and what a supposeidly omnipotent "loving" God would reasonably be expected to allow.
Is it because with axeman's posts you need to think twice, whereas with your God idea you don't need to think at all ?
Doubter: "Oh! What is the third way?
Here you make the FALSE assumption that because you can't think of a third way, that evolution somehow ASSERTS it. Ludicrous! It does NO such thing.
Axeman
_______________________________________
You have made a false assumption here. I was quoting a evolutionist author and I was surprised at his assessment.
" The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. " George Wald
_______________________________________________
"Where are the massive piles of evidence for macro-evolution or the reliability of decay dating over billions of years or other miriad problems we aren't supposed to point out with the current conclusions from the theories."
Firstly, you just changed context. You used the term evolution, and not macro-evolution.
Secondly... there is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, you simply refuse to look at it.
Axemen
___________________________________________
I see nothing but macro-evolution mentioned anywhere here.
It is also a very false assertion to say I have refused to look at evidence for macro-evolution. I have looked at in in fairly close proximity longer than you have probably been alive and I still see the same glaring holes in the theories and measurements. 20 years ago I was involved in a remote geological excursion by a major university with governmant scientists also involved. They showed me samples they found in very unlikely places that would have been there only by the actions of a Noah type flood. Ar least this was their conclusion, but they told me that they couldn't even suggest these findings or their study would be shut down. They were to stick to only findings that proved their original premise and they said this was pretty widespread. In genetics I have followed a government study encompassing 80+ years plus records going back another 50 that show upward macro-evolution is almost impossible in large vertebrates.
_______________________________________________
Stop taking things out of CONTEXT.
Who has claimed that the bible is 100% totally unreliable?? Nobody. This is your FABRICATION.
Axeman
_______________________________________
Maybe that was stu. I get confused in so many threads and insinuations. However in other threads you made statements that were quite a bit more inclusive than what you claim here.
_______________________________________________
FALSE. If the "end" is truly the end, you won't know either.
Axeman
_________________________________________
If you are right you will never know. If I am right I will know. If I am wrong I will never know. If you are wrong you will know.
In odds and poker I like my hand much better.
___________________________________________
2 errors here. First of all, in a future post you disproved yourself and did your homework showing that the big bang theory claims the original size of what you refer to as an egg was quite small and NOT large as you claimed.
Axeman
________________________________________
I could never find any thing on the size of the egg, I thought I left it open to go either way. Again putting words in my mouth and then arguing with the inserted words.
____________________________________________
"Another dodge."
Pure nonsense.
There are more than 10,000 papers published on four popular radiometric dating techniques alone up to 1980. You quote a creationist who makes ridiculous claims that contradict there findings.
"In other word 100% of educated scientists agree with you and not one in this universe is in my corner. Really?"
More strawman drivel. Did I ever claim this? No of course not, its your own delusion and yours alone.
Im sure you can find a few quack scientists to agree with you, like your creationist friend who has been debunked left and right.
Axeman
__________________________________________
What I don't see is an answer to many creationists questions of.
1. How can you be positive of the amount and state of the decaying isotope at the beginning of the time in the test. The problem is in the dating not the measurements.
2. Related to 1. One isotope decays into another. How can you be positive there were no amounts of the latter isotope present in the original backdated sample.
3. How can you be positive that the rate of decay has been constant for billions of years.
4. 10,000 establishment papers need to answer the above questions.
___________________________________________
"It all hang on fable doesn't it. Your opinion only. My bible school prof. friends don't agree with your definition of fable."
Wrong again. Nothing hangs on my label of it being a fable. It hangs on the weight of the evidence which STRONGLY goes against your position and that of your bible school prof. The experts in the field over rule... sorry.
Axeman
_____________________________________________
This is strictly your opinion and nothing more. The evidence actually shows the opposite of what you claim. Like my creationist friends you are strictly staying to atheist references.
_____________________________________________
There you go.... you suckered me into answering your silly questions one more time by claiming I was dodging questions, when in fact I was simply dodging the obvious fabrications you came up with.
I'll try not to do it again.
peace
axeman
_________________________________________
Wanna bet?
Ever drag a string through the house to see if the cat will come out?
Here you make the FALSE assumption that because you can't think of a third way, that evolution somehow ASSERTS it. Ludicrous! It does NO such thing.
Axeman
_______________________________________
You have made a false assumption here. I was quoting a evolutionist author and I was surprised at his assessment.
" The reasonable view [during the two centuries before Louis Pasteur] was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. " George Wald
_______________________________________________
"Where are the massive piles of evidence for macro-evolution or the reliability of decay dating over billions of years or other miriad problems we aren't supposed to point out with the current conclusions from the theories."
Firstly, you just changed context. You used the term evolution, and not macro-evolution.
Secondly... there is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution, you simply refuse to look at it.
Axemen
___________________________________________
I see nothing but macro-evolution mentioned anywhere here.
It is also a very false assertion to say I have refused to look at evidence for macro-evolution. I have looked at in in fairly close proximity longer than you have probably been alive and I still see the same glaring holes in the theories and measurements. 20 years ago I was involved in a remote geological excursion by a major university with governmant scientists also involved. They showed me samples they found in very unlikely places that would have been there only by the actions of a Noah type flood. Ar least this was their conclusion, but they told me that they couldn't even suggest these findings or their study would be shut down. They were to stick to only findings that proved their original premise and they said this was pretty widespread. In genetics I have followed a government study encompassing 80+ years plus records going back another 50 that show upward macro-evolution is almost impossible in large vertebrates.
_______________________________________________
Stop taking things out of CONTEXT.
Who has claimed that the bible is 100% totally unreliable?? Nobody. This is your FABRICATION.
Axeman
_______________________________________
Maybe that was stu. I get confused in so many threads and insinuations. However in other threads you made statements that were quite a bit more inclusive than what you claim here.
_______________________________________________
FALSE. If the "end" is truly the end, you won't know either.
Axeman
_________________________________________
If you are right you will never know. If I am right I will know. If I am wrong I will never know. If you are wrong you will know.
In odds and poker I like my hand much better.
___________________________________________
2 errors here. First of all, in a future post you disproved yourself and did your homework showing that the big bang theory claims the original size of what you refer to as an egg was quite small and NOT large as you claimed.
Axeman
________________________________________
I could never find any thing on the size of the egg, I thought I left it open to go either way. Again putting words in my mouth and then arguing with the inserted words.
____________________________________________
"Another dodge."
Pure nonsense.
There are more than 10,000 papers published on four popular radiometric dating techniques alone up to 1980. You quote a creationist who makes ridiculous claims that contradict there findings.
"In other word 100% of educated scientists agree with you and not one in this universe is in my corner. Really?"
More strawman drivel. Did I ever claim this? No of course not, its your own delusion and yours alone.
Im sure you can find a few quack scientists to agree with you, like your creationist friend who has been debunked left and right.
Axeman
__________________________________________
What I don't see is an answer to many creationists questions of.
1. How can you be positive of the amount and state of the decaying isotope at the beginning of the time in the test. The problem is in the dating not the measurements.
2. Related to 1. One isotope decays into another. How can you be positive there were no amounts of the latter isotope present in the original backdated sample.
3. How can you be positive that the rate of decay has been constant for billions of years.
4. 10,000 establishment papers need to answer the above questions.
___________________________________________
"It all hang on fable doesn't it. Your opinion only. My bible school prof. friends don't agree with your definition of fable."
Wrong again. Nothing hangs on my label of it being a fable. It hangs on the weight of the evidence which STRONGLY goes against your position and that of your bible school prof. The experts in the field over rule... sorry.
Axeman
_____________________________________________
This is strictly your opinion and nothing more. The evidence actually shows the opposite of what you claim. Like my creationist friends you are strictly staying to atheist references.
_____________________________________________
There you go.... you suckered me into answering your silly questions one more time by claiming I was dodging questions, when in fact I was simply dodging the obvious fabrications you came up with.
I'll try not to do it again.
peace
axeman
_________________________________________
Wanna bet?
Ever drag a string through the house to see if the cat will come out?
More Americans believe in God than in angels, miracles, and even heaven. And while half attend worship services on a regular basis, a majority thinks religion plays too small a role in peopleâs lives today.
Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll. Though belief in God has remained at about the same level, belief in the devil has increased slightly over the last few years â from 63 percent in 1997 to 71 percent today.
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they believe in God (by eight percentage points), in heaven (by 10 points), in hell (by 15 points), and considerably more likely to believe in the devil (by 17 points). Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they believe in reincarnation (by 14 percentage points), in astrology (by 14 points), in ghosts (by eight points) and UFOs (by five points).
_____________________________________________
What a great country!
Fully 92 percent of Americans say they believe in God, 85 percent in heaven and 82 percent in miracles, according to the latest FOX News poll. Though belief in God has remained at about the same level, belief in the devil has increased slightly over the last few years â from 63 percent in 1997 to 71 percent today.
Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say they believe in God (by eight percentage points), in heaven (by 10 points), in hell (by 15 points), and considerably more likely to believe in the devil (by 17 points). Democrats are more likely than Republicans to say they believe in reincarnation (by 14 percentage points), in astrology (by 14 points), in ghosts (by eight points) and UFOs (by five points).
_____________________________________________
What a great country!